Fred Bauder wrote: Hmmm. We are very poor on agricultural topics. We have [[Chicken, Alaska]] and [[Chicken Ranch]] but no [[chicken ranching]]. :-) Ec

Magnus- While that would be helpful, in many cases we have articles, but they are rather poor. This is especially true for - human anatomy, diseases, neuropsy. (few MDs on Wikipedia, it seems) - third world nations (mostly CIA World Factbook / State Department data and little else, history articles therefore have strong US bias) - social sciences (some good articles, but very basic ones about key figures still missing) Now, Britannica et al. also have deficits in some of these areas, so we should not just compare ourselves to them but also strive for quality independently. Our strong sides (on en:) currently seem to be: - US history - western celebrities - pop culture - modern technology, computers in particular - natural sciences - controversial issues - religions (mostly taken care of by their adherents so somewhat biased) - fringe stuff (Grandma's Grand Unified Theory of Physics) In other words, things Wikipedians predominantly feel strongly about. Unfortunately at present, few Wikipedians feel strongly about, say, the history of Cambodia, which is currently taken directly from the US State Department and mentions "air raids" in one sentence. Maybe we can get them to make a donation for the free propaganda. Regards, Erik